UNDUE INFLUENCE OF CROWN

447

a Constitution with the Upper House as proposed, without knowing what sort of local legislatures we are to have to govern us? Suppose, after we have adopted the main scheme, the Government come down with a plan for settling the local legislatures upon which great differences of opinion will arise, may it not happen then that the majority from Lower Canada will unite with a minority from Upper Canada and impose upon that section a local Constitution distasteful to a large majority of the people of Upper Canada? The whole scheme, sir, is absurd from beginning to end. It is but natural that gentlemen with the views of honourable gentlemen opposite want to keep as much power as possible in the hands of the Government - that is the doctrine of the conservative party everywhere—that is the line which distinguishes the tories from the whigs-the tories always side with the Crown, and the liberals always want to give more power and influence to the people. The instincts of honourable gentlemen opposite, whether you take the Hon. AttorneyGeneral East or the Hon. Attorney-General West, lead them to this-they think the hands of the Crown should be strengthened and the influence of the people, if possible, diminished-and this Constitution is a specimen of their handiwork, with a Governor-General appointed by the Crown; with local governors also, appointed by the Crown; with legislative councils, in the General Legislature, and in all the provinces, nominated by the Crown ; we shall have the most illiberal Constitution ever heard of in any country where constitutional government prevails. The Speaker of the Legislative Council is also to be appointed by the Crown; this is another step backwards, and a little piece of patronage for the Government. We have heard in a speech lately delivered in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, I forget which, of the allurements offered to the delegates while here in the shape of prospective appointments as judges of the Court of Appeal, Speaker of the Legislative Council, and local governors, as one of the reasons assigned for the great unanimity which prevailed in the Conference. . . .

I now come to another point. It is said that this Confederation is necessary for the purpose of providing a better mode of defence for this country. There may be people who think that by adding two and two together you make five. I am not of that opinion. I cannot see

how by adding the 700,000 or 800,000 people, the inhabitants of the Lower Provinces, to the 2,500,000 inhabitants of Canada, you can multiply them so as to make a much larger force to defend the country than you have at present. Of course the connection with the British Empire is the link of communication by which the whole force of the Empire can be brought together for defence. But the position of this country under the proposed scheme is very evident. You add to the frontier four or five hundred more miles than you now have, and an extent of country immeasurably greater in proportion than the additional population you have gained; and if there is an advantage at all for the defence of the country, it will be on the part of the Lower Provinces and not for us. And as we find that we are about to enter into a very large expenditure for this purpose of defence - this having been formally announced in a speech delivered by the President of the Council at Torontoand as Canada is to contribute to that expenditure to the extent of ten-twelfths of the whole, the other provinces paying only two-twelfths, it follows that Canada will pay ten-twelfths also of the cost of defence, which, to defend the largely extended country we will have to defend, will be much larger than if we remained alone. It appears then that our course is to put "the military and naval defences into "a most complete and satisfactory condition." Now I find that, according to these resolutions, the General Government is to have control of "the military and naval defences," but, of course, the cost of them is not stated. This I contend, then, that if the military and naval defences of all the provinces are to be provided for by the General Government, and if you have to increase the militia for this purpose, the Lower Provinces will pay only their proportion of two-twelfths, and Canada, while obtaining no greater defensive force than at present, will have to pay five times as much as we are now paying. Why, sir, take the line dividing New Brunswick from Maine and you find it separates on the one side 250,000, thinly scattered over a vast territory, from 750,000 on the other, compact and powerful. These 250,000 Canada will have to defend, and it will have to pledge its resources for the purpose of providing means of defence along that extended line. And, if rumour be true, the Intercolonial Railway, this

..

INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY

449

so-called great defensive work, is not to pass along Major Robinson's line. The statement has been made-I have seen it in newspapers usually well informed that a new route has been found that will satisfy everybody or nobody at all; and while I am on this point I must say that it is most singular that we are called upon to vote these resolutions, and to pledge ourselves to pay tentwelfths of the cost of that railway, without knowing whether there will be ten miles or one hundred miles of it in Lower Canada, or whether it will cost $10,000,000 or $20,000,000... We have heard for some time past that the engineer, Mr. Fleming, is prepared to make his report. Why is it not forthcoming ?-why has it been kept back? The representatives of the people in this House will show an utter disregard of their duty if they do not insist upon having that report, and full explanations respecting the undertaking, as well as the scheme for the constitution of the local governments, before they vote upon the resolutions before the House. It is folly to suppose that this Intercolonial Railway will in the least degree be conducive to the defence of the country.1 We have expended a large sum of money-and none voted it more cordially and heartily than myself-for the purpose of opening a military highway from Gaspé to Rimouski; and that road, in case of hostilities with our neighbours, would be found of far greater service for the transport of troops, cannon and all kinds of munitions of war, than any railway following the same or a more southern route possibly can be. That road cannot be effectually destroyed; but a railway lying in some places not more than fifteen or twenty miles from the frontier, will be of no use whatever, because of the readiness with which it may be attacked and seized. An enemy could destroy miles of it before it would be possible to resist him, and in time of difficulty it would be a mere trap for the troops passing along it, unless we had almost an army

1 Brown and Dorion had been personal friends and political allies for years, but on the question of Federation the political alliance was broken. As to the Intercolonial Railway, Brown said: "The Intercolonial Railway will give us at all times access to the Atlantic through British territory. As a commercial enterprise it has not, I apprehend, any considerable merit; as a work of defence it has, however, many advocates: but if the union of the provinces is to go on, it is an absolute necessity; and as the price of union, were there no other argument in its favour, I heartily go for it.".

to keep it open. Upon this question of defence, we have heard so much during the past two or three years that I think it is time now we should have some plain explanations about it. We heard the other day from the honourable member for West Montreal1-and I am always glad to quote him, he is usually so correct-that in less than a year the American army, the army of the Northern States, was increased from 9,000 to 800,000 men ready for service, and that in less than four years they were able to put to sea a fleet which, in point of numbers-I do not say in armament or value-was equal to the entire naval force of England. Well, the honourable gentleman might have gone further and shown that within a period of four years the Northern States have called into the field 2,300,000 men-as many armed men as we have men, women and children in the two Canadas-and that we hear every day of more being raised and equipped. It is stated that, in view of these facts, it is incumbent upon us to place ourselves in a state of defence. Sir, I say it here candidly and honestly, that we are bound to do everything we can to protect the country, but we are not bound to ruin ourselves in anticipation of a supposed invasion which we could not repel, even with the assistance of England. The battles of Canada cannot be fought on the frontier, but on the high seas and at the great cities on the Atlantic coast; and it will be nothing but folly for us to cripple ourselves by spending fifteen or twenty millions a year to raise an army of 50,000 men for the purpose of resisting an invasion of the country. The best thing that Canada can do is to keep quiet, and to give no cause for war. Let the public opinion of this country compel the press to cease the attacks it is every day making upon the Government and people of the United States; and then if war does come between England and the States-even if from no fault of ourswe will cast in our lot with England and help her to fight the battle; but in the meantime it is no use whatever to raise or keep up anything like a standing army.... The honourable member for Peterborough 2 stated the other day, and correctly I believe, that the place for our militia was behind the fortifications of our fortified places, where they would count for something and would be of

1 The Hon. T. D'Arcy McGee. 2 The Hon. F. W. Haultain.

UNDUE CENTRALIZATION

451

some use. No doubt of this. Why, sir, it is absurd to speak of defending this country with such a force as we could maintain when we have the recent example before our eyes of a country in Europe possessing as large a defensive force, literally wiped off the map by an invading army of some 75,000 or 80,000 men. The kingdom of Denmark consists now of only two small islandsless by far, in extent, than one of our large counties; and this dismemberment has been forced upon it, although it had a standing army of 30,000 men, and the feeling of the whole population was in favour of the war. I do not use this argument for the purpose of showing that something ought not to be done respecting our militia. I am willing that we should make sacrifices, if necessary, for the purpose of organizing it thoroughly; but I am decidedly opposed to a standing army, and do not believe we could raise an army now that would be able to withstand the force that could be sent against it. We have sent to the frontier 2,000 men, whose services for a year will cost us $1,500,000; and at the same rate of expenditure, 50,000 men would cost us over thirty millions of money. Now, if the whole defence of the country is to rest upon us, I ask again what would such a force amount to?

Now, sir, when I look into the provisions of this scheme, I find another most objectionable one. It is that which gives the General Government control over all the acts of the local legislatures. What difficulties may not arise under this system? Now, knowing that the General Government will be party in its character, may it not for party purposes reject laws passed by the local legislatures and demanded by a majority of the people of that locality? This power conferred upon the general Government has been compared to the veto power that exists in England in respect to our legislation; but we know that the statesmen of England are not actuated by the local feelings and prejudices, and do not partake of the local jealousies, that prevail in the colonies. The local governments have therefore confidence in them, and respect for their decisions; and generally, when a law adopted by a colonial legislature is sent to them, if it does not clash with the policy of the Empire at large, it is not disallowed, and more especially of late has it been the